Peer- Review Process

Referee Evaluation Process

Health Sciences Quarterly (HSQ) conducts a rigorous double-anonymized peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of its publications. All editorial processes are managed through our online article submission system.

The review process is structured as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Review

The Editor-in-Chief first reviews all submitted articles. The Editor-in-Chief may assign the article to the relevant Section Editor. At this stage, the editor checks the article for compliance with the following criteria:

• Compliance with the purpose and scope of the journal.
• Adherence to the author guidelines (format, length, language).
• Potential scientific weaknesses or lack of novelty.
• Originality.

The journal is a member of CrossCheck and uses 'iThenticate' plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions. Articles that are out of scope, lack originality, have serious scientific flaws, or contain plagiarism are rejected at this stage (Desk Reject) before being sent for external peer review.

2. Referee Appointment

Articles that pass the initial evaluation are assigned to at least two (2) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. It is the responsibility of the Section Editor to select appropriate referees and manage the review process.

3. Double Blind Evaluation

The journal applies a double-blind review Model:

• Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors.

Reviewers are invited via email and asked to evaluate the manuscript for originality, methodology, contribution to the field, and clarity. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and comprehensive comments to the authors and a confidential recommendation to the editor.

The standard review period is 30 days (4 weeks).

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the referee reports, the Section Editor submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible recommendation decisions are as follows:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The manuscript needs revisions before acceptance.
• Resubmit for Review: The article needs extensive revisions and a new round of peer review.
• Decline Submission: The article is not suitable for publication.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author by the Editor-in-Chief, along with anonymised referee comments.

5. Author Revisions

If a 'Revision Required' decision is made, authors are expected to revise their manuscript according to the reviewer and editor comments. Authors should also submit a point-by-point response letter detailing the changes made.

Authors are usually given the following deadlines:

• 21 days (3 weeks) for Minor Revisions.
• 60 days (8 weeks) for Major Revisions (additional time may be requested for reasonable grounds).

Revised manuscripts may, at the editor's discretion, be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review.

6. Final Decision

Final authority over all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is based on the advice of the Section Editor and the referees' reports and is final.

7. Objections

Authors who believe that their manuscript has been rejected due to an unfair assessment or misunderstanding can appeal the decision by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should provide a detailed justification for reconsidering the decision.

8. Layout Control

Upon acceptance, the article is professionally edited. The corresponding author is sent galley proofs of the layout for final checking. At this stage, only minor typographical errors can be corrected. No significant changes in content, data, or authorship are allowed at the proofing stage.